On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 03:55:24PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > > This means that we will end up with many architecture-specific > differences that may not be needed but they are there because no one > really had enough knowledge or time to see the big picture. > > So, I think we should solve this by a simple and well documented fix > now. And long-term we can try to share the /proc/kcore code between > ia64 and x86_64. >
Probably we can share that code later, but atleast for the time being we should either replicate that kcore reading code or right now perform the step of calculating the virtual address by adding physical address in arch dependent section. > >I think in arch dependent code you should set > >kern_vaddr=LOAD_OFFSET + kernel_physical start. > > Right. Patches are welcome. =) > I don't understand that what's the point of giving the review comments on a particular patch if a person is not willing to change the patch. So only way to give review comments is that one should also send a patch otherwise don't talk about it. :-( It should not be that big a patch that we should keep it a future item and right now put a patch which is not intitutive at all. For kexec-tools-testing there are no hard deadlines for any release. If we delay it by a day or two just becuase we can put a better patch which everybody can understand down the line, I will definitely go by that. But the argument, I understand that we are not doing the right thing but we will still do it and if somebody has objections, he should provide a patch, I am not sure I understand that. Why I am pressing so hard for this change is that I am more concerned about that at least logic of something should be clear. By looking at the patch, one can't make any guesses about what kern_offset field is and why it is required. Thanks Vivek _______________________________________________ fastboot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/fastboot
